Cardinal Ratzinger on Archbishop Lefebvre, Vatican II, and Tradition

[JReducation]

I have to admit that it really gave me hope to read this; especially post 3, paragraph 5. It’s always nice to get this kind of reassurance that the Holy Father really understands the problems that the church faces, and is working on a solution that will be best for the church entrusted to him by its founder; our blessed lord.

I certainly believe that he understands the big picture. It would be unreasonable to expect him to understand every local situation since much of it is colored by very specific history and local culture. That’s why I always say that on local issues we really have to deal with local authorities. I think that the Holy Fathers, not just this one, also believe this. That’s why they advocate the Principle of Subsidiarity.

When the concerns of the Society were localized, it was left up to specific commissions and Sacred Congregations to deal with. Now that it has become an international issue, it takes on a bigger complexity that no local bishop can resolve. I say this without malice to any side here. Local bishops are just as frustrated as the bishops and laity of the SSPX, because it’s not something that you can solve in X Diocese and that takes care of that. The bishops are looking to Rome for help.

Let’s just pray for everyone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mytruepower2]

I certainly believe that he understands the big picture. It would be unreasonable to expect him to understand every local situation since much of it is colored by very specific history and local culture. That’s why I always say that on local issues we really have to deal with local authorities. I think that the Holy Fathers, not just this one, also believe this. That’s why they advocate the Principle of Subsidiarity.

When the concerns of the Society were localized, it was left up to specific commissions and Sacred Congregations to deal with. Now that it has become an international issue, it takes on a bigger complexity that no local bishop can resolve. I say this without malice to any side here. Local bishops are just as frustrated as the bishops and laity of the SSPX, because it’s not something that you can solve in X Diocese and that takes care of that. The bishops are looking to Rome for help.

Let’s just pray for everyone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It is definitely an international issue, but within individual nations, it’s also a nationwide problem.

We’ve been seeing this happen in the United States, Belgium, the United Kingdom, France, and a number of other countries throughout Europe and the Americas. Whole nations are beginning to fall away from the faith, both outside and inside the church, and it has led to widespread immorality and cultural chaos.

It’s a well-known fact that even priests and bishops can be unfaithful to church teaching, and that this causes grave harm to their flocks, as it nearly did to me. The problem is that Vatican II led (accidentally) to two groups being formed, which refused to listen to the teachings of Jesus, instead wishing to make up their own. One group (the SSPX among them) favors a tradition-based approach, and the other largely ignoring traditional morals and ethics in favor of the corrupt culture that inevitably surrounds us.

This is a grave problem on a widespread scale, and it won’t be solved in one day. You’re also right to say that it needs all our prayers, but it’s good to know that the holy father understands that the problem exists, and is at least looking for a solution; some way to re-unite the church, and to teach its true message.

This is basically what I meant.

 

[diggerdomer]

Digger,

Why would you say the Society is in formal schism when there are public statements from the Vatican stating the opposite?

You are just giving your opposition a chance to point out you are wrong.

Because the Vatican (and Popes) have noted they are in Schism.

Can you share the supposed sources that you claim suggest otherwise? Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

False

What does the Church teach? Reference? Thanks.

 

[JReducation]

It is definitely an international issue, but within individual nations, it’s also a nationwide problem.

We’ve been seeing this happen in the United States, Belgium, the United Kingdom, France, and a number of other countries throughout Europe and the Americas. Whole nations are beginning to fall away from the faith, both outside and inside the church, and it has led to widespread immorality and cultural chaos.

It’s a well-known fact that even priests and bishops can be unfaithful to church teaching, and that this causes grave harm to their flocks, as it nearly did to me. The problem is that Vatican II led (accidentally) to two groups being formed, which refused to listen to the teachings of Jesus, instead wishing to make up their own. One group (the SSPX among them) favors a tradition-based approach, and the other largely ignoring traditional morals and ethics in favor of the corrupt culture that inevitably surrounds us.

This is a grave problem on a widespread scale, and it won’t be solved in one day. You’re also right to say that it needs all our prayers, but it’s good to know that the holy father understands that the problem exists, and is at least looking for a solution; some way to re-unite the church, and to teach its true message.

This is basically what I meant.

Bold is mine.

HEY WAIT A MINUTE! What about us? I’m not in either of those camps. I’m in the camp that simply does what the Church tells us to do. What are we, potted plants?

I don’t feel green.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

There are some misconceptions here that in justice to all sides should be clarified.

The Society is not in schism.

The actions of the Archbishop were schismatic.

The excommunication had nothing to do with the form of the mass, but with the ordination of four bishops without the pope’s permission.

The mass is sacred, with or without the Society. The Society does not make it sacred.

The Society’s situation was influential in Rome’s decision to take a closer look at the status of the Tridentine form of the mass.

The abuses in the OF of the mass have nothing to do with Vatican II, but are the result of “creativity” in the minds of many priests.

The current status of the Society is that of having no canonical status in the Catholic Church. Therefore, their bishops cannot teach authoritatively except on matters that have already been established by the Church. In other words, they cannot make laws or rules for the faithful, because they are not Ordinaries.

Attendance at mass at an SSPX chapel is allowed to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation, but the faithful who attend are not to support the SSPX’s opposition to Church authority. The rule only sanctions the attendance at mass, not opposition to the authority of the pope and the local bishops. Catholics who attend mass at the SSPX chapels still fall under the jurisdiction of the local bishops, not the bishops of the SSPX.

The mass celebrated by the priests of the Society is valid, but illicit, because the priests are suspended. It would be the same as attending a mass by a priest who is suspended by the local bishop for other disciplinary reasons or who is on leave of absence. If you are suspended, you are not supposed to celebrate mass. If you do, the mass is valid, but your actions are illegal and those who deny the illegality of these actions are acting contrary to Church law.

…

JR,

This is my understanding as well.

Just a couple of things I would add.

There have been no further consecrations (or schismatic acts) after 1988 and if things are left in their current state, the SSPX will eventually die of their own accord. Thus it is in their best interest to reconcile to full communion where they can consecrate more bishops (in accordance with Vatican’s directives, of course).

The excommunications lifted, the state reverts back to pre-1988, where the SSPX priests had already been in suspension since 1976. For all intents and purposes, the book is closed on the penalties imposed on the 1988 consecrations, unless I missed something.

 

[mytruepower2]

Bold is mine.

HEY WAIT A MINUTE! What about us? I’m not in either of those camps. I’m in the camp that simply does what the Church tells us to do. What are we, potted plants?

I don’t feel green.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Touche. I phrased that poorly.

What I meant was “two NEW groups were created.” Those faithful to church teaching were around long before Vatican II.

 

[Pregustator]

There have been no further consecrations (or schismatic acts) after 1988 and if things are left in their current state, the SSPX will eventually die of their own accord. Thus it is in their best interest to reconcile to full communion where they can consecrate more bishops (in accordance with Vatican’s directives, of course).

That is not accurate, as a matter of fact. Three of the four bishops of the SSPX consecrated Father Licinio Rangel of Campos, Brazil a bishop in 1991. Needless to say, this was done without papal mandate. Happily, Bishop Rangel reconciled with the Holy See prior to his death, and was succeeded in his ministry by Father Fernando Rifan, who was consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, with a papal mandate, of course.

In addition to the consecration of Bishop Rangel, the SSPX bishops have continued to engage in activities which seem to imply that they feel that enjoy some sort of jurisdiction. In another thread in this forum, the discussion is about an announcement that the traditionalist “Benedictine” Monastery of Our Lady of Guadelupe will be raised to the status of conventual priory by SSPX bishop Alfonso De Galarreta…who has no authority to do any such thing.

That sort of thing might suggest to some observers something of a schismatic mentality and the building of a parallel church, having its own Benedictines, Carmelites, Dominicans, and so forth.

 

[ProVobis]

That is not accurate, as a matter of fact. Three of the four bishops of the SSPX consecrated Father Licinio Rangel of Campos, Brazil a bishop in 1991. Needless to say, this was done without papal mandate. Happily, Bishop Rangel reconciled with the Holy See prior to his death, and was succeeded in his ministry by Father Fernando Rifan, who was consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, with a papal mandate, of course.

That is fair to point out. Thank you for it.

In addition to the consecration of Bishop Rangel, the SSPX bishops have continued to engage in activities which seem to imply that they feel that enjoy some sort of jurisdiction. In another thread in this forum, the discussion is about an announcement that the traditionalist “Benedictine” Monastery of Our Lady of Guadelupe will be raised to the status of conventual priory by SSPX bishop Alfonso De Galarreta…who has no authority to do any such thing.

That sort of thing might suggest to some observers something of a schismatic mentality and the building of a parallel church, having its own Benedictines, Carmelites, Dominicans, and so forth.

With due respect, unless the Vatican has publicly (or privately to you) pointed out that these are indeed “schismatic acts,” it is only your biased, maybe axe-to-grind, opinion that they should perhaps be prevented from any further consideration as to full reconciliation/communion with the Vatican.

 

[JReducation]

That is not accurate, as a matter of fact. Three of the four bishops of the SSPX consecrated Father Licinio Rangel of Campos, Brazil a bishop in 1991. Needless to say, this was done without papal mandate. Happily, Bishop Rangel reconciled with the Holy See prior to his death, and was succeeded in his ministry by Father Fernando Rifan, who was consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, with a papal mandate, of course.

In addition to the consecration of Bishop Rangel, the SSPX bishops have continued to engage in activities which seem to imply that they feel that enjoy some sort of jurisdiction. In another thread in this forum, the discussion is about an announcement that the traditionalist “Benedictine” Monastery of Our Lady of Guadelupe will be raised to the status of conventual priory by SSPX bishop Alfonso De Galarreta…who has no authority to do any such thing.

That sort of thing might suggest to some observers something of a schismatic mentality and the building of a parallel church, having its own Benedictines, Carmelites, Dominicans, and so forth.

That’s not good. That’s what the Oriental bishops did and got them excommunicated from their oriental Churches.

As my mother would say, “WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?!!!”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SouthpawLink]

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

Hope that helps.

And to be clear, the lifting of the excommunication does not complete nor satisfy the reconciliation required by those following his schim to return to full communion of the Catholic Church. He and many of his followers reject the authoritative and binding teachings of the Catholic Church, as taught at e.g. Vatican II, the Catechism, etc.

Can you name which specific authoritative teachings from Vatican II that the SSPX denies? Please name the dogmatically-defined or definitely-proposed teachings the Church made at Vatican II. Can you explain why the Church didn’t choose to condemn the then-present errors (see Pope John XXIII’s opening address)? Can you explain why the Church seemingly dropped Scholasticism like a bad habit, despite it being the then-canonically enforced theology of the Church (Pope John said they would instead use literary forms of modern man)? What influence, if any, did the “New Theology” have on the Council? Why was the teaching of Humani Generis seemingly ignored at the Council?

 

[Aramis]

They are thinking, if their websites reflect their beliefs, that they are the only orthodox Catholics left.

Unfortunately, that would put them into informal schism.

As would usurping the authority of an Ordinary (aside from Bp. Fellay as Ordinary only to the clerics of the Society).

 

[JReducation]

They are thinking, if their websites reflect their beliefs, that they are the only orthodox Catholics left.

Unfortunately, that would put them into informal schism.

As would usurping the authority of an Ordinary (aside from Bp. Fellay as Ordinary only to the clerics of the Society).

If understand things correctly, even Bp. Fellay is not the Ordinary to the priests of the Society. He is the Superior General. But the statement by the Holy Father was that they do not have canonical status in the Church. Therefore, he is not an Ordinary. An Ordinary is a canonical title. Not all major superiors of men are Ordinaries, only those with canonical approval can be Ordinaries.

I’m going to GUESS here that Bp. Fellay’s election as Superior General was never acknowledged by the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The SSPX is a secular society of apostolic life. It would have to submit their election to the Sacred Congregation for approval. Secular and religious institutes must submit their election for approval. Since the Bishop was excommunicated at the time he was elected, the Sacred Congregation would not have the power to approve his election. I would suspect that until their relationship with the Church is regularized no election would be approved. If he were their Ordinary, he would have the authority to grant faculties. We know that he does not have that authority.

That being said, those major superiors who are Ordinaries, can only grant faculties in their houses and only to hear the confessions of those who live in the house, not to hear the confessions of the laity. That comes from the local diocesan bishop, because the laity fall under his jurisdiction, even though the religious and those who live in their houses do not fall under the bishop’s jurisdiction.

Bp. Fellay can represent the Society in the talks that they are having with the Vatican, because they have been given permission to be represented. It does not make him a canonical superior with Ordinary authority. Authority in religious and secular institutes is a very delicate matter, never as simple as appointing the bishop of a diocese. There are more hoops to jump through.

I’m a little confused by the term “informal schism”. One either is or is not in schism. Since they are erecting a religious community and not establishing a Church, they may be preserved from that. It does not make the action insignificant. It just would not be a schism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

Formal schism is schism acknowledged by the church (as in the Orthodox and the Old Catholics). Informal schism is acting in a manner that is schismatic but not yet formally recognized as schism; usurpation of office and unlawful granting of faculties both are schismatic acts, as is setting up of parishes not part of recognized particular churches. Denial of the authority of Rome or the Validity of the Sacraments is also schismatic and heretical…

To claim that the SSPX are not acting in a schismatic manner is to turn a blind eye to the CIC and the competencies of bishops vs those of ordinaries. But they are not formally in schism, tho many of the faithful who worship with them hold to a schismatic mindset.

They have established parishes in places without the ordinary of the place granting permission. Their priests are granted “faculties” for confession and marriages, and even set up marriage tribunals in some areas. They have established seminaries. They send priests on missions, and ordain men without those men’s proper ordinaries’ permissions.

They act as if in schism, but are not formally in schism…

 

[Ockham]

Does the Pope think the SSPX is in schism formal or informal?

 

[ProVobis]

Does the Pope think the SSPX is in schism formal or informal?

He lifted the excommunications but they’re still in schism? Can’t win.

 

[Aramis]

Does the Pope think the SSPX is in schism formal or informal?

They are not in formal schism; the question becomes one of, are they acting as if they are independent… which they are.

The practical matter is that they have acted as a schismatic church, in granting faculties and establishing parishes. Most of those faculties (specifically, vows, confessors, pastors, marriages and marriage tribunals) are invalid as long as they are not in formal schism; once they or Rome declare it formal schism, however, then they become valid but schismatic faculties… because the valid but illicit orders of the bishops, priests, and deacons.

His Holiness JP II referred to the SSPX as schismatic; His Holiness Benedict did not publicly share that opinion as of last year.

 

[Ockham]

His Holiness JP II referred to the SSPX as schismatic; His Holiness Benedict did not publicly share that opinion as of last year.

Pope John Paul II did a few things which raised the eyebrow like kissing a Koran. If he said the SSPX was schismatic I doubt it was infallible.

 

[Aramis]

Pope John Paul II did a few things which raised the eyebrow like kissing a Koran. If he said the SSPX was schismatic I doubt it was infallible.

Nor was pope Benedict’s declaration they are not. It was excathedra, but not infallible, since the whole matter is one of discipline and temporal issues.

It doesn’t negate the facts that the SSPX continue to act as if a separate church, granting faculties, appointing pastors, ordaining priests and deacons (and subdeacons, lectors and acolytes), and teaching people that Vatican II was in error.

They are, in many ways, a parallel to the Old Catholics; OC:V_I::SSPX:V_II

The big difference: the SSPX had bishops, while the OC had to go to the Bishop of Utrecht for episcopal ordination… Both born in defiance of a general council of the church, both rejecting the primary actions of the council, both claiming that Rome is still the Pope, but then operating without his permission.

Personally, I thing the EF should be offered by a separate hierarchy, perhaps an ordinariate system like the Catholic Anglicans are being set up with, if not a separate church Sui Iuris. And I hope that the SSPX swallow their errant pride, and come back to the church.

 

[pnewton]

Pope John Paul II did a few things which raised the eyebrow like kissing a Koran. If he said the SSPX was schismatic I doubt it was infallible.

Nor was pope Benedict’s declaration they are not. It was excathedra, but not infallible, since the whole matter is one of discipline and temporal issues.

Interesting exchange here. Live by the caveat, die by the caveat. If one is true, both are true.